Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
leadsled

Is your airspace your private property?

Recommended Posts

Wow lets save the Pigeons now? Do they have any redeeming qualities beside crapping on cars? Glad they shot it down, have to wait and see what the courts do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard of pigeon shoots and i have a question about them, do they eat the pigeons they shoot? That would be totally fine with me because if they are just throwing them away then that would be wrong. Also, Pigeons can and have been pest birds that have devastated crops and grain farms. Shooting "pest" birds for their meat while having a little fun is not animal cruelty.

Edited by Corruptz0rz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that they are birds raised in captivity for the sole purpose of shooting them. They aren't pest birds or being hunted for food, although I suppose they could eat them afterwards. While that's not something I would do for fun, if you want to do it on your own land I don't see a problem with it and you should be free from idiots with drones harassing you about it. Pigeons are nothing more than flying rats, I don't care how they came into existence you're OK shooting them in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that they are birds raised in captivity for the sole purpose of shooting them. They aren't pest birds or being hunted for food, although I suppose they could eat them afterwards. While that's not something I would do for fun, if you want to do it on your own land I don't see a problem with it and you should be free from idiots with drones harassing you about it. Pigeons are nothing more than flying rats, I don't care how they came into existence you're OK shooting them in my book.

 

As long as they are being eaten then i say they can do it as much as they want. Some fish are grown in captivity and killed for their meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted a similar vid before of this type of shoot, and some animal rights activist sitting outside the property, taping the people leaving. Like Raider said in this thread, and I said in the last thread........pigeons are literally flying rats. Shoot 'em all. They have no purpose.

 

 

 

If caught or identified, Hindi is hoping to file charges against the shooters as his drone was damaged to the tune of $200 to $300.

 

Well, when it comes to an activity that involves people shooting into the air.........don't fly something over them.018.gif

 

............and fuck Bob Barker.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would someone think that your property is really private property. The goverment own's the air and the ground you pay to live on. And anybody can fly over you or some people dig under you any time they want. At any time you go outside of your house you have lost your rights to privacy.

As far a drone's over the usa i'am ok with it, it's no differant then a guy in a plane. And Broxton Bridge Plantation should have to the pay for damage to the drone.

10 year's or less from now drone's will be everywhere in your life. They sell them at the mall now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm in my yard and some jackass thinks it's okay to fly an R/c helicopter with camera 2 feet over my head, then we have issues.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe from half way to the center of the planet up into the stars and other planets is mine all mine. When space travel comes I’ll be waiting on some rent checks and I will be merciless. (and I'm a pretty good clays shooter with a few shotguns)

post-26137-0-47782600-1330453686.jpg

Edited by 20-Mags
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it turns out, what Hindi was doing was perfectly legal. Not only was it legal at the state level, but also at the federal level as well.

 

As it turns out, President Obama signed a law this month that compels the “Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors - from selling real estate and dusting crops, to monitoring oil spills and wildlife, even shooting Hollywood films,”

 

The federal government has jurisdiction over airspace within its domain, and each state has authority over the space above the grounds within its borders except in places within the domain of federal regulation. An aircraft is subject to the authority of the federal government and to the authority of a particular state while traveling over it. Landowners have air rights that extend upward beyond their property, the boundaries of which are delineated by local Zoning ordinances. These air rights ordinarily may be used to the extent that they are connected to the enjoyment of the property.

 

Since the general public has a right to freedom of travel in the navigable airspace of the United States, an aircraft may have legal access to airspace above private property. A landowner might have a civil Cause of Action for Trespass or Nuisance, however, where an aircraft enters landowner's airspace in such manner as to constitute an infringement on the landowner's right to the use and possession of the property. In some instances the landowner is entitled to an Injunction to prohibit unlawful intrusion of his or her airspace.

 

The landowner has exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere, even though the airspace is a public highway[ii]. S/he owns at least as much above the ground as s/he can occupy or use in connection with the land[iii]. The right of an owner of lands extends downward and upward indefinitely[iv].

 

Thus, flight of an aircraft over land is lawful, unless the flight is at such a low altitude as to interfere with the existing use to which the land is put by the owner, or unless the flight is conducted in a manner imminently dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land[v].

 

Any aircraft flying over the land and the structures on the land of another is a trespasser[vi]. However, privileged overflight through public airspace does not constitute a trespass.

 

A temporary invasion of the air space by aircraft is a privilege. So long as it does not interfere unreasonably with the possessor’s enjoyment, it is privileged[vii].

 

It appears that the landowner has a clear case of trespass. The activist has clearly demonstrated interference with the landowners "rights of enjoyment"

 

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1946).

 

[ii] Cheskov v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 416 (Wash. 1960).

 

[iii] Antonik v. Chamberlain, 81 Ohio App. 465 (Ohio Ct. App., Summit County 1947).

 

[iv] Thrasher v. Atlanta, 178 Ga. 514 (Ga. 1934).

 

[v] Brenteson Wholesale v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 166 Ariz. 519 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

 

[vi] La Com v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 132 Cal. App. 2d 114 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1955).

 

[vii] Id.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would someone think that your property is really private property. The goverment own's the air and the ground you pay to live on. And anybody can fly over you or some people dig under you any time they want. At any time you go outside of your house you have lost your rights to privacy.

As far a drone's over the usa i'am ok with it, it's no differant then a guy in a plane. And Broxton Bridge Plantation should have to the pay for damage to the drone.

10 year's or less from now drone's will be everywhere in your life. They sell them at the mall now.

 

kinda like how alot of people think that the body scanners at airports are good and prevent potential threats? we see what the fuckers are really doing with them.

 

the government doesnt own the air. they restrict it. theres no fee or tax for me to breath outside. but if we let them keep going at this rate there may one day be one soon. mad.gif and these drones only serve one purpose, arial surveillance and vaporizing their enemy with missiles. its turning more and more into nazi germany every week.

 

If I'm in my yard and some jackass thinks it's okay to fly an R/c helicopter with camera 2 feet over my head, then we have issues.

 

id shoot that fucker down.

 

 

 

"...As it turns out, President Obama signed a law this month that compels the “Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors - from selling real estate and dusting crops, to monitoring oil spills and wildlife, even shooting Hollywood films..."

 

we know deep down what they are really using them for.

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the first torts cases they taught us held that up to some undefined distance the air over your property as far as tresspass was concerned. You could control who shot over your property under a tresspass action.

 

One land owner was shooting ducks on his property by firing across his neighbor's property. The neighbor didn't like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well nothing for nothing, pigeons are trash anyways. and if they breed them for this sort of event, then so be it. i know a man that does the same thing with quail. too many people now days that are anti gun that do this kind of pussy bitching. guess he still dont know what chickens and cattle are raised for.

 

just more hippie bullshit. and besides, a few people tried to get him to stop before his craft took to the sky. he negelcted, knowing that people where shooting guns. deliberately shot or not, he still shouldnt have lifted off with his drone and then wonder why someone shot at it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the first torts cases they taught us held that up to some undefined distance the air over your property as far as tresspass was concerned. You could control who shot over your property under a tresspass action.

 

One land owner was shooting ducks on his property by firing across his neighbor's property. The neighbor didn't like that.

 

I'd be mad if my neighbor tried to damnify my vivary too.

 

The neighbor was actually shooting to scare the ducks out of the property owner's duck pond/trap. The court was willing to recognize and protect the property owner's economic use of property. The larger issue was about interference with use rights, not physical trespass. You see, property is like a bundle of sticks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those "reality provides the solution" stories. Sure, make a helicopter and fly it,

but fly it over a place where people are already shooting aerial targets, and you'll get what you deserve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the first torts cases they taught us held that up to some undefined distance the air over your property as far as tresspass was concerned. You could control who shot over your property under a tresspass action.

 

One land owner was shooting ducks on his property by firing across his neighbor's property. The neighbor didn't like that.

 

I'd be mad if my neighbor tried to damnify my vivary too.

 

The neighbor was actually shooting to scare the ducks out of the property owner's duck pond/trap. The court was willing to recognize and protect the property owner's economic use of property. The larger issue was about interference with use rights, not physical trespass. You see, property is like a bundle of sticks...

 

Different case. You're quoting the one with the line about "seducing ducks"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to help out some of these pro-pigeon dorks a while back.

 

I have nothing against pigeon hunting for food, or pest control, but...

 

I personally think taking a cage raised bird, strapping it into a little box and then releasing it so you can shoot it a second later is chicken shit and something no real man would ever do, it is a cowardly act that robs the shooter of honor. Obviously this is what morons who killed cats and puppies for sport as children do when they grow up.

 

So I felt sorry for some of the anti pigeon folks and spent some time trying to help them sort out what was and wasn't legal. I tried to explain how with slight modifications their protests could be legal AND effective, and I tried to educate them on what gun laws came into play as the pigeon shooters in their region were routinely threatening the protesters with firearms without anything like enough justification to warrant a pointed weapon, often on public property, in one instance they drove up on a group of protesters across from a school, got out of their vehicle with their shotguns and brandished them at the protesters while yelling that they "had a right to shoot them right now"

 

The pro-pigeon people were complete fucking morons, they would go from calm discussion to freaked-the-fuck-out every few minutes and could not maintain composure through a conversation. They had no regard for strategy of any sort and continually compromised their case by breaking the law needlessly. If I disagreed with anything they said (ie, birdshot does not travel several miles) they would immediately act as if I was the enemy and scream at me. At the school gun brandishing incident the moron protesters spit on their assailants and then physically assaulted them once the cops had disarmed them, completely ruining an open and shut "brandishing/assualt with a deadly" case.

 

I finally gave up, realizing that they were looking for something to get worked up about.

 

fuck the pigeon shooters, fuck the protesters, they deserve each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see, property is like a bundle of sticks...

 

 

unsure.png property is a FAGGOT???? unsure.png

000.gif

 

That's what I've heard from experts on the subject.

 

One of the first torts cases they taught us held that up to some undefined distance the air over your property as far as tresspass was concerned. You could control who shot over your property under a tresspass action.

 

One land owner was shooting ducks on his property by firing across his neighbor's property. The neighbor didn't like that.

 

I'd be mad if my neighbor tried to damnify my vivary too.

 

The neighbor was actually shooting to scare the ducks out of the property owner's duck pond/trap. The court was willing to recognize and protect the property owner's economic use of property. The larger issue was about interference with use rights, not physical trespass. You see, property is like a bundle of sticks...

 

Different case. You're quoting the one with the line about "seducing ducks"

 

Keeble v. Hickeringill?

Edited by Dudethebagman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep -- "to learn the trade of seducing other ducks to come... is not prohibited either by the law of the land or moral law...." -- Some old English Judge.

Edited by GunFun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep -- "to learn the trade of seducing other ducks to come... is not prohibited either by the law of the land or moral law...." -- Some old English Judge.

 

Sounds like bestiality flew back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Tromix - Lead Delivery Systems
Dinzag Arms
CHAOS, Inc
Mississippi Auto Arms, Inc
Cobra's Custom
Carolina Shooters Supply
R & R Targets
LONE STAR ARMS
SGM Tactical
Mach 1 Arsenal
K-VAR
C&S Metall-Werkes
American Specialty Ammo
Csspecs Magazines
Phoenix Technology
Evlutionz LLC


  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×